Page 61 - Shared Guideline Development Experiences in Fertility Care

Feedback
Interviews
Most of the eight interviewees thought the guideline groups were well composed. Nevertheless, they perceived combining the role of moderating the meetings and
providing clinical input for the content as unsatisfactory. e two project leaders
said they underestimated the project coordinator’s workload, particularly in
combining the coordination tasks with writing the dra guidelines. Furthermore,
views and preferences di ered between the chairperson of the MuG and the
project coordinator about the scope, format, and content of the guideline; this 3 formed a time-consuming barrier.
Questionnaires
e 27 questionnaires showed that most participants perceived the methodology of the network approach on the one hand as ‘the promising future of guideline development’ and on the other hand as ‘complex and unclear.’ Positive notes included the perceived individual learning curves for guideline development, the opportunity of distributing key questions to participants with relevant knowledge, various participants’ perceived respect for autonomy, and the collaborative development of the one MuG. Furthermore, participants reported that the high level of coordination required to carry out the project as planned was a potential barrier to the approach. e di erent opinions among the professionals caused delays and tension in nalizing the guidelines. Clear expectations about the roles of the participants and a description of the nal format for the guideline were lacking.
e integration of the MoGs into the MuG was seen as ‘powerful’, mainly regarding ‘special attention to transitions in di erent phases of care (alignment)’, ‘the opportunity to check possibly underexposed topics’ and ‘the simultaneous development of all guidelines’. e nal equalization of guideline content was ‘too late’ (e.g., when recommendations had already been formulated), ‘di cult’ (due to di ering opinions), and ‘time consuming’ (extra meetings). One respondent said integrating MoGs into the MuG was ‘needless.’
Patient involvement
All MuG group respondents described the participation of patient representatives in their group as ‘valuable’ (e.g., in uencing discussions by refocusing on
Patient-centred network approach
59